Is is enormously offensive, unfair, and shortsighted to penalize or tax somebody based on their wealth. Why? Simply because I have more money? Maybe, just maybe, I actually earned it? Maybe I give back to society?
Irrelevant. Punishments in justice systems have three purposes: retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence.
1) Retribution: A fixed fine is going to hurt a poor man more than a rich man. 2) Rehabilitation: A fixed fine is going to deter a poor man more than a rich man. 3) Deterrence: A fixed fine is going to deter poor people more than rich people.
Clearly in all cases, a fixed fine is not an equal penalty. To make these purposes equally relevant to all levels of wealth, only fines which are proportional to wealth work properly.
You then move off-topic to the very different question of tax,and propose all tax should be on consumption (spending). It's an interesting notion. It serves the green agenda, and hampers capitalism (capitalism requires constant circulation of money). On the other hand it's extremely regressive. Poor people have to spend a higher proportion of their income than wealthy people, just on the necessities of life.
It's now known that Bugger Hall was a banqueting room in Jerusalem that was famed for it's camel steaks. Unfortunately if you arrived there late in the evening, they couldn't bring any more camels in because the main gate was closed. And it was impossible to bring them in the back gate. So you'd get nothing.
People would have trouble mistaking iBooks for Delicious Library. For one thing they aren't even on the same OS. For another the apps are for entirely different purposes. For another every single thing about the apps is different other than the concept of displaying books on book shelves.
Had the boot been on the other foot (DL from Apple, iBooks from DM) iBooks wouldn't have been denied from the iOS AppStore.
But Apple has been pulling competing applications from the app store since it's inception, no alterate email clients, SMS clients, diallers, MP3 players,
That's odd, because you can go to the App Store and find plenty of alternate email clients, diallers, SMS clients, and MP3 players. Plenty that have been there a long time.
browsers (proper browsers, not viewers for server generated images or window dressing for the existing rendering engine) and others.
That's the only one in your list that's true. You are allowed to create alternative browsers, and there are many on the App store. But you're not allowed to put your own browser rendering engine on iOS. In part because it would fall foul of the no interpreters with downloadable content rule.
You are allowed to compete with Apple's own apps on functionality. What you're not allowed to do is to copy the UI of one of Apple's Apps. That's the reason Evi have been asked to change. Because the UI is too much of a Siri copy.
So there's the first lie. In the title of the book. It should have been called "A political scientist sceptical of global warming". Or according to your interpretation "An economist sceptical of global warming".
And with that book?
It's the only thing he's known for. It's what he makes his money from. Whenever he's wheeled out for an opposing view on TV, the strap-line will say "Bjorn Lomborg, Author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
Mark my words. Economics will destroy environmentalism as it is currently practiced. I don't mean here the fuzzy beliefs of the economists. Instead, I mean the actual, real world dynamics of human systems of trade and value exchange.
It may well stop AGW being tackled. And if so it'll be responsible for the shit state of the world. Even idiots like you will realise the error of your ways, if you live long enough.
I never heard of the "glass in the weed" thing before, but hearing about it now it seems clear where it started -- in the ghetto, and is certainly false. Dealers often call high quality dope "glass" these days.
Well I have heard of it before, you're not really in a position to pronounce on whether t's real or not.
It's real. The reason for it is perfectly clear. Look closely at the more potent weed, and it has droplets of THC adhering to the fine hairs on the bud. If tiny glass beads are thrown onto a plant as it is growing, it sticks, and becomes part of the bud. Result, the weed looks more potent than it is, and it's weight has been increased.
He's got a fair point. If you measure criminals by the amount of money they make through illegal means, then wall street and stock exchanges around the world are the place to find the biggest ones. If you've ever traded any stock with a slow news turnover, you'll find that price moves invariably precede announcements. That's insider trading, and it's not a rarity, it's daily standard practice.
Of course they aren't often pursued, rarely caught, rarely convicted and the punishments are small compared with crimes committed by poor people. The law is mostly there to protect the rich from the poor.
They are of course of varying degrees of badness. Trouble is unless they are family or personal friends outside of the drug scene, you have no way of telling how bad they are. Criminals don't come with accreditation.
Google seems to have a lot of hits on the glass weed issue, but I'm unable to determine in a quick search whether this is real or just paranoia and urban legend.
It's real. In France the penalties for weed are higher than for resin for exactly the reason that weed does sometimes come with glass beads, and when smoked it is a significant heath concern.
If you can't find some reputable people to deal with, you probably shouldn't be buying anything from them.
"Reputable people to deal with" is the main reason why once there are legalised sources, people will use them.
I'm a cannabis smoker and I wouldn't pay more for less (and in the case of cannabis, the potency would be reduced a lot) even if it would decriminalize my usage.
I would. A choice of predictable products. Ability to go to a local shop rather than cross town and deal with scary looking criminals. Certain knowledge that weed hasn't had glass added, and resin hasn't had excrement added.
Most other people would too. Remember it's perfectly possible and legal to brew your own beers and wines. And if there was an appetite for such home made beverages there'd be a market for them, and also moonshine. But most people buy commercial brands.
The homemade drug solutions only thrive during prohibition.
A firearm is a tool designed for few purposes, including to kill.
That's wishful thinking, not history. From the first firearms in China, through pretty much every technological advance, guns have been designed as efficient ways to kill people.
The uses in hunting and target sports are secondary uses, and relatively recent given the expense. Bows and arrows, traps and snares are much cheaper ways of hunting.
Not really. Everyone who drinks occasionally has the situation where they're not entirely sure if they're under the limit or not. In that situation if there's a breathalyser available a proportion will self-test. And of those that fail a proportion will not drive that would have done otherwise. Which will save a non-zero number of lives.
So it has a point. Whether you think the concept of freedom outweighs the compulsion to spend a couple of Euros on a breathalyser that might save your life or someone else's, well that's up for debate.
Europeans are significantly more pragmatic than Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
Is is enormously offensive, unfair, and shortsighted to penalize or tax somebody based on their wealth. Why? Simply because I have more money? Maybe, just maybe, I actually earned it? Maybe I give back to society?
Irrelevant. Punishments in justice systems have three purposes: retribution, rehabilitation and deterrence.
1) Retribution: A fixed fine is going to hurt a poor man more than a rich man.
2) Rehabilitation: A fixed fine is going to deter a poor man more than a rich man.
3) Deterrence: A fixed fine is going to deter poor people more than rich people.
Clearly in all cases, a fixed fine is not an equal penalty. To make these purposes equally relevant to all levels of wealth, only fines which are proportional to wealth work properly.
You then move off-topic to the very different question of tax,and propose all tax should be on consumption (spending). It's an interesting notion. It serves the green agenda, and hampers capitalism (capitalism requires constant circulation of money). On the other hand it's extremely regressive. Poor people have to spend a higher proportion of their income than wealthy people, just on the necessities of life.
Rather than asking redundant questions, why not RTFA?
"There is no God-given ability which "makes" you rich."
False.
You seem to be confusing "God-given ability" with "Daddy was rich therefore I am".
tl;dr is the mark of a moron.
Belief in god(s) is the mark of a moron.
It's now known that Bugger Hall was a banqueting room in Jerusalem that was famed for it's camel steaks. Unfortunately if you arrived there late in the evening, they couldn't bring any more camels in because the main gate was closed. And it was impossible to bring them in the back gate. So you'd get nothing.
To quote it to make any sort of point at all is useless.
Yeah, the point is moo.
If God is omnipotent, presumably he intended for people in the future to not be able to understand what his son said.
Oh well, maybe I'll just have to ask the original author one day... :-)
Ha! You don't imagine a Saint is going to talk to the likes of you?! Money might not count for anything up there, but titles obviously do.
According to the scientific experiments. RTFA.
And our spelling of stalking is pretty different too.
How did Apple have a monopoly on MP3 players? There were plenty of others on the market although the iPod was the best-selling one.
In a similar way to how Microsoft had a monoploy on PC operating systems when there was Linux and Mac OS around.
Greater than 90% of the market.
And even if they did have a monopoly, in what way did they abuse this monopoly?
They didn't. That's my point.
People would have trouble mistaking iBooks for Delicious Library. For one thing they aren't even on the same OS. For another the apps are for entirely different purposes. For another every single thing about the apps is different other than the concept of displaying books on book shelves.
Had the boot been on the other foot (DL from Apple, iBooks from DM) iBooks wouldn't have been denied from the iOS AppStore.
Apple probably thinks it's to similar if:
Or rather than, you know, talking out of your ass, you could take a look at the UIs of the two apps.
If they ever actually achieve market dominance in an area, they will be destroyed by anti-trust litigation
With iPod they had monopoly dominance in the MP3 player market for years. No anti-trust suit. It's not illegal to have a monopoly.
But Apple has been pulling competing applications from the app store since it's inception, no alterate email clients, SMS clients, diallers, MP3 players,
That's odd, because you can go to the App Store and find plenty of alternate email clients, diallers, SMS clients, and MP3 players. Plenty that have been there a long time.
browsers (proper browsers, not viewers for server generated images or window dressing for the existing rendering engine) and others.
That's the only one in your list that's true. You are allowed to create alternative browsers, and there are many on the App store. But you're not allowed to put your own browser rendering engine on iOS. In part because it would fall foul of the no interpreters with downloadable content rule.
You are allowed to compete with Apple's own apps on functionality. What you're not allowed to do is to copy the UI of one of Apple's Apps. That's the reason Evi have been asked to change. Because the UI is too much of a Siri copy.
It's in economics.
So there's the first lie. In the title of the book. It should have been called "A political scientist sceptical of global warming". Or according to your interpretation "An economist sceptical of global warming".
And with that book?
It's the only thing he's known for. It's what he makes his money from. Whenever he's wheeled out for an opposing view on TV, the strap-line will say "Bjorn Lomborg, Author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
Mark my words. Economics will destroy environmentalism as it is currently practiced. I don't mean here the fuzzy beliefs of the economists. Instead, I mean the actual, real world dynamics of human systems of trade and value exchange.
It may well stop AGW being tackled. And if so it'll be responsible for the shit state of the world. Even idiots like you will realise the error of your ways, if you live long enough.
I never heard of the "glass in the weed" thing before, but hearing about it now it seems clear where it started -- in the ghetto, and is certainly false. Dealers often call high quality dope "glass" these days.
Well I have heard of it before, you're not really in a position to pronounce on whether t's real or not.
It's real. The reason for it is perfectly clear. Look closely at the more potent weed, and it has droplets of THC adhering to the fine hairs on the bud. If tiny glass beads are thrown onto a plant as it is growing, it sticks, and becomes part of the bud. Result, the weed looks more potent than it is, and it's weight has been increased.
He's got a fair point. If you measure criminals by the amount of money they make through illegal means, then wall street and stock exchanges around the world are the place to find the biggest ones. If you've ever traded any stock with a slow news turnover, you'll find that price moves invariably precede announcements. That's insider trading, and it's not a rarity, it's daily standard practice.
Of course they aren't often pursued, rarely caught, rarely convicted and the punishments are small compared with crimes committed by poor people. The law is mostly there to protect the rich from the poor.
They are of course of varying degrees of badness. Trouble is unless they are family or personal friends outside of the drug scene, you have no way of telling how bad they are. Criminals don't come with accreditation.
Google seems to have a lot of hits on the glass weed issue, but I'm unable to determine in a quick search whether this is real or just paranoia and urban legend.
It's real. In France the penalties for weed are higher than for resin for exactly the reason that weed does sometimes come with glass beads, and when smoked it is a significant heath concern.
If you can't find some reputable people to deal with, you probably shouldn't be buying anything from them.
"Reputable people to deal with" is the main reason why once there are legalised sources, people will use them.
I'm a cannabis smoker and I wouldn't pay more for less (and in the case of cannabis, the potency would be reduced a lot) even if it would decriminalize my usage.
I would. A choice of predictable products. Ability to go to a local shop rather than cross town and deal with scary looking criminals. Certain knowledge that weed hasn't had glass added, and resin hasn't had excrement added.
Most other people would too. Remember it's perfectly possible and legal to brew your own beers and wines. And if there was an appetite for such home made beverages there'd be a market for them, and also moonshine. But most people buy commercial brands.
The homemade drug solutions only thrive during prohibition.
A firearm is a tool designed for few purposes, including to kill.
That's wishful thinking, not history. From the first firearms in China, through pretty much every technological advance, guns have been designed as efficient ways to kill people.
The uses in hunting and target sports are secondary uses, and relatively recent given the expense. Bows and arrows, traps and snares are much cheaper ways of hunting.
People kill people.
And so do monkeys. (If they have a gun.)
The $2 expense? Get a grip.
Right after a bunch of people who didn't read the article.
Not really. Everyone who drinks occasionally has the situation where they're not entirely sure if they're under the limit or not. In that situation if there's a breathalyser available a proportion will self-test. And of those that fail a proportion will not drive that would have done otherwise. Which will save a non-zero number of lives.
So it has a point. Whether you think the concept of freedom outweighs the compulsion to spend a couple of Euros on a breathalyser that might save your life or someone else's, well that's up for debate.
Europeans are significantly more pragmatic than Americans.